"The New York City Police Department is taking aim at owners of certain shotguns and rifles, telling them all long guns with more than a five-round capacity must be turned in, altered or taken out of town."

I think there are a lot of inaccuracies in that picture. For example, Gandhi.

Gandhi practiced what he preached, even when violently attacked. His autobiography contains an account of such an incident that occurred during a trip to South Africa. Gandhi was traveling on a ship from India to Natal province with 800 other passengers, including his family. Racial discrimination in the province was rampant. Once white residents learned that Gandhi was aboard the ship, they became furious. They accused him of denouncing Natal whites while he was in India and bringing Indian immigrants to settle in the province as provocation.

Gandhi was innocent of both charges, but the residents attacked him when he disembarked from the ship anyway. He was hit with punches, kicks, stones and bricks, but refused to retaliate and simply kept walking (to the best of his ability). The mob was subdued only when the wife of the town&#8217;s police superintendent opened her parasol and stood between Gandhi and the mob.

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.&#8221;- Gandhi And, yes I've read this quote In Context. Nonetheless, the point being made is that Indians would be bearing arms.

&#8220;Hence also do I advocate training in arms for those who believe in the method of violence. I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor,&#8221; Gandhi wrote in his work The Doctrine of the Sword.

Gandhi knew all too well the value of a people who could defend themselves be it strictly on their own behalf, or fighting side by side WITH the British Empire, at that time.

Nonetheless, if it makes you feel much better, please remove Gandhi's photo from that line up in your mind's eye and still, what do you have??

Which begs the question... What's you point?

Click to expand...

That's actually what the article I've linked is talking about - taking particular quotes out of context. It also talks about how one's views evolved over time.

Point is there are a lot of anecdotes and inaccuracies circulated on behalf of the pro-gun cause, while all that is needed is adherence to the Constitution and the legal framework around it.

Another interesting fact is that Stalin did not actually disarm Soviet people - they were never armed. One of the major disarmaments in Russian (Russian Empire at the time) history took place in 1906. In 1907 by imperial decree the rules were slightly softened, allowing handgun ownership to the officers of the Imperial Army. After revolution in 1917 the criminalization continued, with the first law being passed in 1918. Technically a lot of Soviet people were armed as the result of WWII, but they turned most of those weapons in without being forcefully disarmed. The way I see it, Stalin's tyrannical regime has little to do with the gun control.

Well, now your in my territory. Stalin enforced a no gun policy, (except for his henchman) plain and simple.
Having not only had a grandfather who was an officer in the Imperial Guard, pre-revolution and during the revolution, but also family who were shot in the back of the heads, and left in the dirt many years later, and some who (we think) rotted to death in the Gulags, and I can tell you that when you state, "without being forcefully disarmed" you're a bit full of crap, and you most likely know that. Forcefully? Considering that Stalin was murdering his fellow Russians by the millions (millions more than Hitler), and you did not know if your neighbor, or even your best buddy from childhood would turn you in, there really wasn't much need for force, now was there?

Just what is your point?

Click to expand...

You're not the only person here who "had a grandfather". Now my point is that various historic anecdotes aren't necessarily useful to the cause. Gun culture (as are many other things) in US is very unique, and doesn't require a comparison to any other nation.

Well, now your in my territory. Stalin enforced a Communist no gun policy, (except for his henchman) plain and simple. And, what is your point?
Having not only had a grandfather who was an officer in the Imperial Guard, pre-revolution (and many relatives who owned guns at that time) and during the revolution, but also family who were shot in the back of the heads, and left in the dirt many years later, and some who (we think) rotted to death in the Gulags, and I can tell you that when you state, "without being forcefully disarmed", and you most likely know that. Forcefully? Considering that Stalin was murdering his fellow Russians by the millions (millions more than Hitler), and you did not know if your neighbor, or even your best buddy from childhood would turn you in, there really wasn't much need for force, now was there?

Just what is your point? You seem to be dancing around what you really want to state.

ghandi is on record, circa the battle for Indian independence, acknowledging the futility of nonviolence (carrot) without the implementation of violence (stick). other criticisms of ghandi aside (pretentious misogynist racist classist jerk) he was no dummy when it came to recognizing real material social/political conditions and strategizing accordingly. in other words he believed in freedom too much to throw away certain circumstantially useful tactics for mere ideological interpretations. iirc, there's something where ghandi admonishes people not to judge those physically fighting the British.

as far as Stalin, if he wasn't anti gun he would have reformed gun laws. just because he inherited an effective and genocidal system of control doesn't mean he is morally superior to his predecessors. on the contrary. furthermore, he was a part of the party when those systems were created so.

as far as the constitution and the American people today, when you read the papers the framers wrote and what they were reading, it gets clearer that they 1 expected social systems (family, church, community, whatever) to do a lot of the "Americanizing" of each new generation 2 they did not see this country as a Government, but as a People, who would in turn create a small utilitarian orginization, an employee or subcontractor, to more cheaply do some few needful things. 3 they had no illusions about government, and intended the revolution to be perpetual in spirit and therefore hopefully rarely so desperate as to need violent insurrection but knowing that the constant real possibility of insurrection would keep the government and moneyed interests from attempting a coup. they knew the government could never be a check on itself so the 2nd amendment is like a hint, that the 4th branch of government cannot be government but must be the people armed and organized for themselves and not for it.

Welcome to our community

As the center of our organization, this website provides a place for Northwest gun owners to converse,
organize, learn, educate, trade, and most importantly, work together to preserve our Second Amendment rights.

Sign up now to participate, it's completely free and takes only a few moments.

About Us

We believe the 2nd Amendment is best defended through grass-roots organization, education, and advocacy centered around individual gun owners. It is our mission to encourage, organize, and support these efforts throughout Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.